No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

44 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 3

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa · July 16, 1998

    Harder v. ACandS, Inc. (1998)

    The federal district court denied General Electric's motion for summary judgment, holding that Iowa's fifteen-year statute of repose did not bar the Harders' claims against GE over asbestos insulation blankets. Under Iowa Code…

  2. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 3, 1997 · in the opinion

    Anchor Packing Co. v. Grimshaw (1997)

    …3\] (Emphasis added). In addition, the legislative history of C.J. § 11-108 indicates that the General Assembly intended that the cap apply broadly, as opposed to only malpractice claims. In January 1986, Senate Bill No…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · January 31, 1990

    Kraciun v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1990)

    …Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1953 onward (except Navy 1954-1958); service crew, general maintenance worker and electrical maintenance worker E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1948-1985; maintenance person…

  4. Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 25, 1983 · in the opinion

    Froud v. Celotex Corp. (1983)

    …2d 199, 214-15, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 1595-96 (Black, J., dissenting); General Dynamics Corp., Electric Boat Division, v. Benefits Review Board (2d Cir.1977), 565 F.2d 208, 212; Williams v. Ray (1978), 146…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · December 23, 1981 · in the opinion

    Petes v. Hayes (1981)

    …was phrased "Does plaintiff, Alton Petes, suffer from disability or disease which specifically results from the inhalation of asbestos particles ..." (Emphasis added.) "Specifically" was not defined in the general charge. In its everyday usage, "specifically" is…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 30, 1996 · in the opinion

    Armstrong World Industries v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. (1996)

    …were not dangerous. There was concern about the dustiness of Armaspray — but not so much for health reasons as for reasons of cleanup and potential damage to electrical equipment. The specifications for Armaspray called for good…

  7. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · April 19, 1982 · in the opinion

    Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1982)

    …Rather, defendants state, the cost "will be borne by the public at large and reflected in a general, across the board increase in premiums to compensate for unanticipated risks." There is some truth in this assertion…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · November 29, 1993

    Angelo v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1993)

    …It upheld exclusion of a treating doctor's deposition because the Angelos had not shown diligent efforts to secure his attendance. It found the reverse bifurcation proper, and the jury instructions and general verdict form adequate.

  9. Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · May 14, 1982 · in the opinion

    DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982)

    …the court concluded that because the tolling provisions of the general limitations statute were in existence prior to the enactment of the wrongful death statute the legislature "could not possibly have had in mind that the…

  10. Company document · Motley 1000 · April 4, 1968

    F. H. Zimmerman to L. B. Crowell on J-M's Health Safety Booklet (1968)

    What it shows Those present included Certain-teed, the Ruberoid division of General Aniline & Film, J-M, and Mrs. Clytia Chambers of Hill and Knowlton, J-M's public relations counsel, with whom the booklet was…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee · January 9, 1984 · in the opinion

    Johnson County, Tenn. v. US Gypsum Co. (1984)

    While it is true that contractors who perform construction work for the state operated universities are not protected by general statutes of limitation, see Dunn v. W.F. Jameson and Sons, Inc., 569 S.W.2d…

  12. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · October 4, 2011

    Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. (2011)

    …at issue, and circumstantial evidence that a manufacturer bought the supplier's asbestos can create a fact question on exposure. A raw-asbestos supplier also owes the general duty of reasonable care. Causation; Product Identification; Expert…

  13. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · September 29, 1981 · in the opinion

    Bunker v. National Gypsum Co. (1981)

    …0 \ \ 0-9 \ 346 \ 89.6 \ 10.4 \ 36 \ 0 \ 0 \ \ ----------\ -------\ --------\ ----------\ ------\ ------\ ------\ \ Total \ 1,117 \ 51.5 \ 48.5 \ 366 \ 126 \ 50 \ The general purpose of a statute of limitations is to encourage prompt resolution of claims…

  14. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · April 14, 1995 · in the opinion

    Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …the petit jury venire. The Supreme Court announced a general rule that "\[t\]he denial or impairment of the right \[to exercise peremptory challenges\] is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." Swain, 380 U.S…

  15. Company document · Motley 1000 · April 17, 1968

    Frank H. Zimmerman of National Gypsum to C. L. Sheckler Opposing the Asbestos-Cement Health Safety Booklet (1968)

    …distribution of the booklet. The reasons given are: 1) No risk has been shown to the general public from exposure to asbestos-cement products manufactured for use in the building and construction industry. 2) The proposed…

  16. Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · July 7, 1993 · in the opinion

    Behrendt v. GAF Corp. (1993)

    …fishing, woodworking. Mr. Behrendt's pain symptoms eventually led to a diagnosis of mesothelioma in December 1990. He was taken to the Emergency Room at Community General Osteopathic Hospital, Harrisburg, on December 23, 1990 with a…

  17. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 1, 1993 · in the opinion

    Watkins v. Fibreboard Corp. (1993)

    …asbestos was the producing cause. This is a basic issue in this case, articulated to some extent in the trial judge's general instructions, but not clearly articulated by either party, except perhaps by the plaintiffs…

  18. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 25, 1991 · in the opinion

    Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (1991)

    …with Bob Hinks. Q. About that knowledge? A. A general discussion, a light general thing that I had read about in the paper or, you know, not actually getting into detail. Q. You read about what…

  19. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · February 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Meehan v. Celotex Corp. (1985)

    …of the negligent act. Indeed, as Gaboury itself says: "In determining the proper forum in which to bring suit under the general statute fixing venue where the cause of action \arose', or \accrued', the \injury occurred…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 13, 1981 · in the opinion

    Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …to be persuaded that the choice of law made in Flatt is correct. That is, under any standard, federal law applies. Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 [\1361] (5th Cir. 1975); Willis v…